Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

c/o Dr. John C. Alden, M.D.

350 – 30th Street, Suite 444

Oakland 94609‑3426



tel:  (510) 452‑2020

fax:  (510) 832‑8507


In Propria Persona


All Rights Reserved

without Prejudice



United States Court of Appeals


Ninth Circuit


Paul Andrew Mitchell,          )  Appeal No. 02‑15269 and

                               )  372(c) No. 02‑89005

          Plaintiff/Appellant, )

     v.                        )  NOTICE OF MOTION AND

                               )  MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al.,  )  ENLARGED BRIEFS,

                               )  ON FIRST IMPRESSION.



COMES NOW Paul Andrew Mitchell, Appellant in the above entitled case, to request leave to file enlarged briefs.  The meritorious reasons for this request are enumerated, and justified, as follows:


1.   The sheer complexity of this case has generated a multitude of equally complex and interrelated issues.


Consider this: with a total of 129 named Defendants and a working limit of 100 pages, for example, Appellant would have had, at most, only one partial page to summarize all the facts particular to the misconduct of each Defendant.  Under this scenario, there would have been no space left for any statements of jurisdiction or pertinent laws, parties, counts, remedies, exhibits, or any tables of contents.

The overall complexity was driven mainly by the immense size and ever increasing power of the Internet.  CPU’s are pushing 2.5 GHz now!


2.   Counsel for Defendants are contesting a large number of issues that were raised in Appellant’s OPENING BRIEF.


Appellant argues that it is only fair to afford Him an opportunity now to reply to each of those issues, in the order of their occurrence in each of the answering briefs of Defendants who have attempted to appear here.  In this fashion, the Court can place opposing briefs side‑by‑side, and systematically step through each argument point‑by‑point, hopefully easing considerably the tasks of reviewing and evaluating the merits of each argument.

The research and preparation of Appellant’s REPLY briefs were also facilitated greatly by arranging His rebuttal arguments in this same sequence.


3.   Further research and discussion were necessary to prove prejudice and a lack of fairness by USDC personnel.


It was only after receiving a separate answering brief by Defendant Carnegie Mellon University (“CMU”), that several discrete violations of the USDC’s Local Rules also became obvious to Appellant.  Those violations were serious reasons for causing Appellant to suffer adverse substantive consequences in this case.  Appellant submits that the burden was surely upon Him to document these violations separately, and in appropriate detail, as they were confirmed.


4.   Appellant is now alleging criminal conduct by certain USDC personnel, adding further to His burdens of proof.


It is Appellant’s obligation under 18 U.S.C. 4 to report felony federal offenses to a judge of the United States.  In the context of the instant case, the burden is also upon Appellant to establish probable cause for those charges, in sufficient detail and with correct citations to the official record now before this Court.


5.   Appellant is also alleging criminal conduct by attorneys who have attempted to appear on behalf of Defendants.


Appellant regards the practice of law without a valid California license to be a serious matter, raising as it does the matters of fairness and equal protection, which is Appellant’s fundamental Right.  It also suggests strongly that there has been fraud upon this Court and upon the lower courts which is also Appellant’s burden to prove with conclusive evidence timely presented in sufficient detail.

For example, Appellant argues that the former attorney for AOL did commit defamation per se against Appellant at the hearing on December 14, 2001 A.D., when that attorney accused Appellant of filing “fraudulent” Notices of Judicial Default.  That attorney has now failed to answer Appellant’s NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR PROOF OF FRAUD, thus activating estoppel against him.  He is no longer with us anyway.

If it also turns out that Appellant’s approach has, in fact, uncovered fraudulent customs at the State Bar of California, this one fact necessarily created additional burdens of proof for Appellant.


6.   The issue of original jurisdiction is not a “novel philosophical theory” but a fundamental question.


Ropers’ BRIEF on behalf of CMU is noteworthy for citing a group of unpublished cases that have absolutely no bearing on this appeal.  In discussing the important distinction between constitutional courts and legislative courts, that BRIEF cited a single (1) USDC case which Appellant had never seen;  it cited no controlling Supreme Court decisions whatsoever.  Appellant felt obligated to refute that case, and the best way to do that was simply to quote it verbatim.  A Supreme Court Justice once wrote, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.”


7.   Appellant has done original research raising matters of first impression before this Court of Appeals.


Appellant is not aware of any other published research, or cases, which analyze in detail the Act of June 25, 1948 as Appellant has now done.  Appellant continues to assert a fundamental Right to convene a constitutional court, and the DCUS is that court.  It was necessary for Appellant, therefore, to use additional pages fully to document the added research He had discovered and further to substantiate the proofs He must make in order to prevail on this all important point.  Appellant strongly favors full disclosure, particularly in matters that are obviously controversial and have far-reaching consequences.


8.   The issue of amending the Initial COMPLAINT deserved careful elucidation of its minor deficiencies and the justification for adding one or more Civil RICO counts.


To characterize the primary focus of the Initial COMPLAINT as a copyright case would be grossly unfair.  Appellant now argues that the real motive for most of the misconduct alleged in that COMPLAINT was severe economic retaliation for Appellant’s dedicated judicial activism and extensive related writings.  This is truly racketeering.

One brilliant lawyer whom Appellant consulted before filing it quickly concluded that this case is really one involving a concerted conspiracy to impoverish Appellant, and to inflict a protracted sequence of serious damages upon Him, in multiple ways.  In this context, the legislative history of the Anticounterfeiting Consumer Protection Act of 1996 fully supports his observations in this regard.

This honorable Court will please take careful note of the fact that there are no complaints presently outstanding against Appellant, whether civil or criminal, nor any cross‑complaints.


9.   The existence of outstanding SUBPOENAS raises the spectres of obstructing discovery, sanctions and contempt of court.


Appellant’s research has now confirmed that American courts are looking with growing disfavor upon the frequent practice of “stalling” discovery.  Appellant may be one of the few, if not the first litigant who has ever obtained SUBPOENAS for attorneys’ licenses to practice law in the State of California.

Also, there is the matter of the SUBPOENAS issued in this case for the computer activity logs and the identities of Internet subscribers suspected of infringing Appellant’s exclusive copyrights;  those SUBPOENAS still remain unanswered, depriving Appellant and this Court and the DCUS of crucial information that is absolutely necessary for assessing accurately His actual damages, under the Seventh Amendment in the U.S. Constitution.

Clearly, establishing proof of stalling and obstruction was yet another burden which required Appellant further to document the pertinent facts and laws.  But, there is still much more that can be done to document the many ways in which obstruction has occurred in this case, both before and after it was filed.



All premises having been duly considered, Plaintiff respectfully requests leave of this honorable Court of Appeals ‑‑ in the interests of justice and full disclosure ‑‑ to file enlarged briefs which separately reply, in detail, to each of the answering BRIEFS filed by named Appellees in the instant case.


I, Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris, Appellant in the above entitled action, hereby verify under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the “United States” (federal government), that the above statement of facts and laws is true and correct, according to the best of My current information, knowledge, and belief, so help me God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1).



Dated:   July 9, 2002 A.D.



Signed:  /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell


Printed: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Sui Juris

         Appellant In Propria Persona (notPro Se” [sic])


I, Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris, hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the “United States” (federal government), that I am at least 18 years of age, a Citizen of ONE OF the United States of America, and that I personally served the following document(s):






by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first class United States Mail, with postage prepaid and properly addressed to the following:


Judge Alex Kozinski                Clerk of Court (5x)

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals     Attention:  Cathy Catterson

P.O. Box 91510                     Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Pasadena 91109‑1510                P.O. Box 193939

CALIFORNIA, USA                    San Francisco 94119‑3939

                                   CALIFORNIA, USA


Latham & Watkins                   Ropers Majeski Kohn & Bentley

633 West Fifth Street              1001 Marshall Street

Los Angeles 90071‑2007             Redwood City 94063




[Please see USPS Publication #221 for “addressing” instructions.]



Dated:   July 9, 2002 A.D.


Signed:  /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell


Printed: Paul Andrew Mitchell, Appellant In Propria Persona